> “But I would urge you to change the terminology to "PE-to-CE-bandwidth" > /"CE-to-PE-bandwidth" to make it super-explicit, the current terminology has > been causing endless confusion to implementers (I realise it's inherited from > the service models, but changing the terminology in LXNM would cure the > problem well)” > All, Julian raised early this week a comment about an L2NM terminology we are > inheriting from the service model. The full context of this discussion can be > seen at: https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/lxnm/issues/353. > > As a contributor, reading the current draft text in conjunction with the YANG > model description, I agree with Julian. It's confusing. Typo aside, I had > to jump back and forth a couple of times to grok things correctly. Aligning > the terminology in the module with text in Section 7.6.4 in terms of CE vs. > PE and direction would help. > > <tp> > > Or you could align it with l3nm where a similar issue was raised and the > wording was changed to make it clearer. The wording does not use PE or CE, > and is the wording that that the IESG has approved!
Yes, I see what you mean. They were very clear in those descriptions, even addressing the SM discrepancies. Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
